Joshua Foreman

FATHERS CUSTODY FIGHTS

Joshua Foreman
PLEASE READ
free help
FREE LEGAL ADVICE
how not to email me
how to shop for a lawyer
information for clients
who wins?
get ready for your divorce
winning custody
16 ways to win custody
how to win custody
increase your residential time
litigation support
DV arrest- what to do
the Moscow Rules
protection orders
taking custody from Mom
revision- your 2nd chance
Relocation_Act
property and debt
parental_kidnappings
same sex partners
third party custody
parentage cases
other good lawyers
my publications
my favorite trial movies
miscellaneous tips
meretricious relationships
will you look at my paper
for_attorneys
download information & forms
domestic violence
dependency cases
get some help
Contact Us
computer and Internet
child support
50-50 parenting plans
Visa MasterCard PayPal
client testimonials
About Us
under construction
 
PROPERTY AND DEBT
 
quote from Webster v Webster, & my brief in Marriage of TH
 
also: update link to Judge Winsor's article
 
 
 
 
 
a drafting lesson to us all in this case, Jul. 25, 2006 - 31997-7 - Kimberly S. Bobbitt, Respondent v. Ronald K. Bobbitt, Appellant (get permanent cite)

Marriage dissolved in 2002; real property (& the duty to pay the mortgage* )
awarded to H. W remained liable on the mortgage, under the contracts clause of
our federal Constitution. H did not pay the mortgage. W (now ex-wife) got an
order to sell the property, which was sold in 2004.
 
Held: disso court had no post-disso authority to order H to sell his property. Appeals court blew off the argument that W's credit was being hurt without any real discussion.
 
(*I use "the mortgage" in the colloquial sense to mean the obligation to pay the
debt. I'm sure all us lawyer types know the mortgage is actually a separate
document, the security agreement.)
 
W's lawyer should have protected client by asking the trial court to award the
realty to H only on condition that W's liability on the mortgage be extinguished
by a timely novation or re-finance, otherwise realty to be sold.
 
This decision also has an interesting discussion of just how flagrantly partisan
a GAL can be and get away with it; all the trial judge has to do is say he/she
independently evaluated the evidence.
 
Among other things the GAL did wrong, the child in this case said he wanted to live with his dad, but the GAL wasn't interested in what the kid wanted or finding out why the boy felt that way.

Held: no abuse of discretion to deny dad's motion to remove the GAL.
 
Morals of the story:
 
(1.) you gotta win at the trial court level, and (2.) it can be a tough uphill fight if you don't win the battle for the GAL.
 
What got the GAL down on dad was he didn't pay her -- 'nuff said.
 
------------------------------